Jump to content
Islamic Forum

yusufar

IF Guardian
  • Content count

    250
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by yusufar

  1. Guantanamo Suicides Pr Move?

    This would be a laugh if it wasn't serious. What democracy and what accountability and for whom? Democracy has been abused by the ruling elites in both countries and they have shown incontrovertibly that they are not accountable to anyone. We have seen how elections could be subverted in the US, not that it would have made any difference to the so-called democratic process as practised by its ruling elites. Have the US and israel ever listened to anybody else? How many dictatorships and despotic regimes have been propped up by the US in defiance of the wishes of the majority of the people of those countries? Democratic hypocrisy! The US and israel regularly thumb their noses at the majority of the world's nations in the UN. See a list of UN resolutions vetoed by the USA (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.krysstal(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/democracy_whyusa03.html"]here[/url], many of them to do with israel. As stated at this site, "The USA used its veto over 70 times during the 20th century. On the majority of occasions, the USA vetoed resolutions that were favoured by the majority of the world's nations. Very little of the USA's voting patterns is reported in the Western media. When other countries consider voting against a resolution put forward by the USA, they are usually demonised in the Western media and the whole basis of the United Nations called into question. The United Nations and its voting system was set up at the end of World War II by the victorious nations from that conflict. There is, perhaps, an argument to modify the United Nations voting system and make it more representitive of the modern world. Even with its faults, the United Nations is not a few people in an office - it is the world community. It is the rest of the world - the 94% of the world's population that is not from the USA. By damning and ignoring the United Nations, the USA is snubbing the majority of the world's population. This will not make the USA more popular around the world. As one commentator on USA baseball in the UK noted: "Only the USA could have a World Series and not invite the rest of the world". This is the political equivalent." Quotes Richard Perle, USA Pentagon advisor: "I do not believe that the United States should be bound by the same rules as the smallest African nation. Life isn't like that." Madeleine Albright, former USA Secretary of State to the United Nations: "[The USA will] behave, with others, multilaterally when we can and unilaterally as we must." Daniel Patrick Moynihan, USA ambassador to the United Nations writing in his book, A Dangerous Place: "The [uSA] Department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook. This task was given to me and I carried it forward with no inconsiderable success." George Bush, USA president during the bombing of Iraq: "What we say goes." Edward S Herman, USA writer on the Middle East: "Thus, instead of having to leave the occupied territories israel continues to push out the locals by force, uproot their trees, steal their water, beggar them by 'closures' and endless restrictions, and it suffers no penalties because it has USA approval, protection, and active assistance. The partners also deny Palestinians any right to return to land from which they were expelled, so 140+ contrary United Nations votes, and two Security Council Resolutions (both vetoed by the United States) have no effect; and in a remarkable Orwellian process of doublethink - and double morality - israel is free to expel more Palestinians in the same time frame in which their protector spent billions and great moral energy in a campaign to return worthy victims in Kosovo." "Another remarkable Orwellian process is this: the abused and beggared Palestinian people periodically rebel as their conditions deteriorate and more land is taken, homes are demolished, and they are treated with great ruthlessness and discrimination. Many are among the hundreds of thousands expelled earlier, or who have still not forgotten their relatives killed and injured by israeli violence over many years - and Palestinian deaths by israeli arms almost surely exceed israeli deaths from 'terrorism' by better than 15 to 1. And after this long history of expulsion and murder they are still under assault. In this context, if they rise up in revolt at their oppressors this is not 'freedom fighters' or a 'national liberation movement' in action, it is 'irrational violence' and a return to 'terrorism,' and both israeli and USA officials (and therefore the mainstream USA media) agree that the first order of business is to stop this terrorism." "But in the definitional system of oppressor and patron this is TERRORISM, horrifying and intolerable. What israel has done making this people desperate is not terror. As [uSA] State Department PR man James Rubin explained after another spate of israeli demolitions of Palestinian houses, this was 'a wrong signal' for a delicate stage in peace talks. Not bad in themselves and a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, just a wrong signal. Madeleine Albright called on the israelis to refrain from 'what Palestinians see as the provocative expansion of settlements, land confiscation, house demolitions and confiscation of IDs'. Only 'the Palestinians' see these actions as 'provocative;' Albright does not find them objectionable in themselves or illegal. In fact, under Clinton the United States finally rejected the international law and almost universal consensus on the occupation, declaring the territories not 'occupied Palestinian lands' but 'disputed territories' (Albright). By USA fiat Palestinian lands became open to settlement by force by the ethnic cleanser who the United States has armed to the teeth, and who has aggressively brutalized while creating 'facts on the ground' during the 'dispute,' which will not be settled until the victims end their terrorism." "And Albright has stressed that there is 'No moral equivalency between suicide bombers and bulldozers' (Newsweek, Aug. 18, 1997). Clinton, standing next to israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres as the latter defended a blockade of the Palestinians that was adding to their misery, put the blame on Hamas who were allegedly 'trying to make the Palestinians as miserable as possible' (Phila. Inquirer, March 15, 1996). There was not the slightest hint that israel was contributing to Palestinian misery despite massive expropriations and 300 devastating "closures" after 1993." "So it is not israeli policy, which amounts to a continuous and illegal assault on and displacement of the Palestinians, that is ultimately at fault and that must be changed to resolve this conflict. Albright can't recognize that decades of 'bulldozers' necessarily produce suicide bombers, although she was quick to find that much less repression in Kosovo produced 'freedom fighters;' nor can she distinguish between systematic policy (i.e., bulldozers) and uncontrollable outbursts from victims that do NOT constitute policy. The inability of these USA officials to see israel's hugely discriminatory and brutal expulsions, demolitions, mistreatment and plain exploitation as seriously wrong in themselves, illegal, or causal manifests a complete identification with and apologetic for the ethnic cleansers. Five years ago a senior Clinton White House official declared that 'We are not going to second-guess israel'. [Later] Colin Powell assured the Jewish lobbying group AIPAC that 'We are dedicated to preserving this special relationship with israel and the israeli people...[and] a secure israel with internationally-recognized borders remains a cornerstone of the United States foreign policy.' In short, now as in the past, and with only rare exceptions, as in the case of the unauthorized israeli attack on Egypt in 1956, israel will get strong USA support for whatever it does, and the ethnic cleansing of its unworthy victims can proceed as required." "One of the triumphs of [the] Oslo [Agreement] was its buying off of Arafat, making him into a second class client and an enforcer of the pathetic 'settlement,' with USA and israeli funds and training exchanged for his commitment to keep his people in line and control 'terrorism.' The formula for the wholesale terrorists (israel) has always been: whatever violence we perpetrate is 'retaliation' and it is up to the retail terrorists (Palestinians) to stop terrorizing and then we might 'negotiate' with them in a 'peace process.' israeli leaders say 'You can't ask us to stop expanding existing settlements, which are living organisms' (Netanyahu), as if this were not in violation of UN resolutions, the Fourth Geneva Convention, and even the 1993 Oslo agreement itself." "USA officials can never bring themselves to say that what israel is doing is wrong - at worst it may send 'a wrong signal,' etc. And they follow closely the israeli party line that 'terrorism' (Palestinian, not israeli) must be stopped first, so that the 'peace process' can be put back on track. For Albright, 'security' is primary, and she told Arafat that 'she needed a commitment and action on the subject of security' before she could make a credible approach to israel on other issues. 'Security' always means israeli security, not Palestinian, for Albright - or for Colin Powell - just as for israeli officials. Here as elsewhere these high USA officials internalize the israeli perspective and the idea of 'security' for the unworthy victims doesn't arise, any more than the notion that israeli insecurity arises from the much greater Palestinian insecurity that inevitably results from israeli policies. In his visit to Jerusalem in March 1996, Clinton spoke of 'the awful persistence of fear' - but only in reference to israelis, not to Palestinians. This is an internalized racist bias that has characterized USA official statements and media and expert opinion here for decades." "Why does the United States support israel's ethnic cleansing? Broadly speaking, the reasons boil down to two factors. One is israel's role as a USA proxy in the Middle East and its integration into the USA security system, which encompasses not only keeping the Arab world in line, but also providing services like supplying arms to the Somoza regime in Nicaragua, the Pinochet government of Chile, Mobutu, Idi Amin, apartheid South Africa, and the Guatemalan and Argentinian terror states. Because of these services, israel's victims are not merely unworthy, they also become 'terrorists' and part of the 'Islamic threat' for the USA political elite and mainstream media." "The second factor is the exceptional power of the pro-israel lobby, which for many years has bought and bullied politicians and the media, so that they all vie with one another in genuflections to the holy state. This bullying is especially strong and effective in Canada and the United States, but it applies widely, and the distinguished British reporter Robert Fisk, describing the abuse he has suffered in reporting on the Middle East, says that 'the attempt to force the media to obey israel's rules is now international'." "These factors feed into the intellectual and media culture in complex ways that institutionalize the huge bias, with pro-israeli and anti-Palestinian perspectives internalized and / or made obligatory by potential flak and pressure from above and without. This is extremely important, as there is no reason to believe that the USA public would support a massive and brutal ethnic cleansing program if they were given even a modest quantum of the ugly facts, if the main victims rather than the ethnic cleansers were humanized, and if the media's frames of reference were not designed to apologize for israeli expropriation and violence. However, the ongoing media and intellectual biases do very effectively complement the national policy of support for the ethnic cleansing state, just as they helped cover up national policy supporting Indonesia's murderous occupation of East Timor, and just as they roused the public to a pitch of frenzy over the unapproved Yugoslav violence in Kosovo." Der Spiegal, news magazine from Germany (1 September 1997): "Never before in modern history has a country dominated the earth so totally as the United States does today... America is now the Schwarzenegger of international politics: showing off muscles, obtrusive, intimidating... The Americans, in the absence of limits put to them by anybody or anything, act as if they own a kind of blank cheque in their 'McWorld'". NoControllingLegalAuthority, from a post on a forum about the USA's role in the United Nations: "The UN is headed for the dust bin of history. It has no moral authority. It is dominated by cowards, scoundrels and thieves. It's participants do not even obey the laws of the city of New York. Many of us are ready to help UN personnel pack and to drive them to the airport for a one-way trip out of our country. Today would not be soon enough. Good riddance to the self-serving human debris." Reuel Marc, former (USA) CIA covert operator in February 2003: "The tougher Sharon becomes, the stronger our image will be in the Middle East". Yes, we are all aware of the democracy and accountability practised by the US and israel and we have had ENOUGH!
  2. Abu Musab Al-zarqawi Reportedly Killed

    Grreetings Makko, Well, I'm not and I don't need you or anyone else to tell me otherwise. I have entirely no sympathy for anyone proven to be a terrorist or who kills innocent people, especially women and children or who gives orders which lead to the same result and that includes Bash and Bliar and all those other warmongers you seem to like defending. yusufar
  3. Abu Musab Al-zarqawi Reportedly Killed

    Yet another point of view from Kurt Nimmo: (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_kurtnimmo(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/?p=402"]Killing al-Zarqawi: End of a Pentagon-Dairat al-Mukhabarat Collaboration?[/url] Thursday June 08th 2006, 1:23 pm Wayne Madsen writes: The U.S. military spokesman’s revelation that Zarqawi’s body was partly identified from tattoos is noteworthy. Abu Abdel-Rahman al-Iraqi, described as the Deputy Emir of Al Qaeda in Iraq on an Al Qaeda web site, stated that Zarqawi was a martyred mujahed sheikh. Zarqawi was a lieutenant of strict Wahhabi Islam adherent Osama Bin Laden. However, why Zarqawi would have had tattoos is baffling. Islam specifically forbids tattoos. According to Islamic texts, the Prophet Mohammed forbade tattooing… Of course, like the al-Zarqawi wearing a gold ring (also forbidden for devout Muslims), the al-Zarqawi sporting tattoos probably was not and never was a Wahhabi Muslim. More likely, the al-Zarqawi we recognize (with a barrage of recent images in preparation for his theatrical exit from the corporate media stage), was a Jordanian patsy, probably a garden variety criminal who served prison time and was groomed by Jordan’s Dairat al-Mukhabarat intelligence service to believe he was engaged in a jihad against the Great Satan. For some odd reason, according to the State Department, nobody has rushed out to collect the $25 million bounty placed on al-Zarqawi’s head. “I’ve seen a lot of news reports that either a Jordanian individual or group provided information or perhaps a neighbor provided information which led to the strike being carried out successfully,” said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack. Maybe this “Jordanian individual” is independently wealthy and a good Samaritan. As for the neighbor, considering the damage inflicted by the explosives used to supposedly kill al-Zarqawi (see this photo), there is a good chance he suffered the same fate as al-Zarqawi. Good news is bad news and it really does not matter. “Oil fell briefly below $70 a barrel Thursday, after U.S. aircraft killed al Qaeda’s leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, raising faint hopes for a let-up in attacks on Iraq’s wrecked oil industry,” reports Reuters. Some believe Iraq was invaded not to steal Iraq’s oil, but rather take it off-line as a way to jack up prices. I’m not sure I buy this. More likely, Iraq’s oil is a casualty of the neocon plan to destroy the country and balkanize it. Oil is oil and it sure the heck ain’t going anywhere. It will be ready to pump after Iraq is split into three pieces—one Kurdish, another Shia, and the last Sunni. Of course, al-Zarqawi, or the legend of al-Zarqawi, played an instrumental role in moving along the sort of sectarian strife required to break the country into bite-sized pieces. As noted above, if al-Zarqawi (or somebody called al-Zarqawi, as the actual al-Zarqawi was likely killed some time ago) was indeed killed earlier today, he was betrayed and set-up to be killed, as patsies often are. “The successful targeted assassination of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was clearly part of a larger package deal between PM Maliki and the Sunni leadership,” writes Judith Apter Klinghoffer for the History News Network. It included an agreement to release 2000 “detainees” and the long awaited completion of the cabinet, most especially the installation of a Sunni as defense minister. Thus, Maliki appointed Shiite Jawad Polani as interior minister, Sunni Abdel Qader Al Obeidi as defense minister and Shiite Shirwan Al Waili to head national security. It was that agreement which secured the cooperation of Jordanian intelligence and the Hilmi locals and provided the US special forces with the intelligence needed to function effectively…. It is important to note that killed along with Zarqawi was his spiritual leader Abdul-Rahman and that “17 more raids were conducted on other suspected hideouts for Zarqawi associates in Baghdad and its outskirts a few hours after he was killed. They produced a ‘treasure trove’ of information.” The externally imposed artificiality of Iraqi politics aside, it appears a decision came down from on-high that it was time to off al-Zarqawi, as he long ago outlived his usefulness (or the black op going by the name “al-Zarqawi” had run its course), and the “safe house” used by Jordanian operatives (it should be noted that the CIA now prefers to collaborate with Jordanian intelligence over Mossad, and for obvious reasons, as the latter is extremely treacherous) was targeted after the handlers escaped, leaving behind “al-Zarqawi” and his so-called spiritual advisor. No doubt, even as the walls came crashing down and his body was torn apart by shrapnel, the patsy we know as “al-Zarqawi” believed he was working for jihad, even though a strict Wahhabi would consider him a tattoo-emblazoned infidel.
  4. Abu Musab Al-zarqawi Reportedly Killed

    Another point of view by Kurt Nimmo: (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_kurtnimmo(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/?p=401"]Abu Musab al-Zarqawi: Dead Again[/url] Thursday June 08th 2006, 7:52 am Let’s see. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the phantom terrorist with super-human powers, was killed in the Sulaimaniyah mountains of northern Iraq, and then he was killed in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, followed by a death during Operation Matador near the town of Qaim on the Syrian border, and finally he was killed, along with his mentor, Osama bin Laden, in the besieged city of Fallujah. Now we are told he was “killed in a U.S. air raid north of Baghdad [in the town of Hibhib near Baquba],” according to Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, Reuters reports. The reported death—and past deaths—are simply another dimension of a rather transparent psychological operations campaign run out of the Pentagon. In April, we learned that al-Zarqawi is little more than hype, a neocon propaganda program. “The US military is conducting a propaganda campaign to magnify the role of the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, according to internal military documents and officers familiar with the program,” reported the Sydney Morning Herald. “The effort has raised his profile in a way that some military intelligence officials believe may have overstated his importance and helped the Bush Administration tie the war to the organization responsible for the September 11 terrorist attacks,” or rather supposedly responsible, as no credible evidence has surfaced to date to pin blame on “al-Qaeda” (in fact, it is difficult to prove “al-Qaeda” itself actually exists). “The military’s propaganda program has largely been aimed at Iraqis, but seems to have spilled over into the US media. One “selective leak” about Zarqawi was made to Dexter Filkins, a New York Times reporter based in Baghdad. Filkins’s resulting article, about a letter supposedly written by Zarqawi and boasting of suicide attacks in Iraq, ran on the Times front page in February, 2004.” I’d have to say this is backwards. In fact, the “propaganda program” was aimed primarily at Americans, who need a scary Freddy Kruger Muslim to convince them the occupation of Iraq is necessary. More scary demons will be required soon for a shock and awe attack unleashed against Iran. Of course, it is only natural to kill off al-Zarqawi once again. Earlier this year, the Pentagon released a video, allegedly discovered “by US forces in a hideout in the Al-Yusufiyah neighborhood of southern Baghdad,” showing al-Zarqawi (or a person we are told is al-Zarqawi), wearing New Balance tennis shoes and fumbling with a U.S. M-249 squad automatic weapon. It appears the purpose of this video is to make al-Zarqawi out to be a bumbling idiot. “Is the recently released video, which consists in ridiculing rather than villainizing ‘Enemy Number One’, part of the Zarqawi PSYOP program?” muses Michel Chossudovsky. It appears the neocon-dominated Pentagon wants to retire the al-Zarqawi PSYOP program, as al-Zarqawi has served his purpose—demonizing the resistance and kicking off a “civil war” in Iraq. Recall the retirement of Osama. “Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he’s alive at all. Who knows if he’s hiding in some cave or not; we haven’t heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is—really indicates to me people don’t understand the scope of the mission,” said the Decider on March 13, 2002. Indeed, the “scope of the mission” became glaringly obvious almost exactly a year later, when the neocons invaded Iraq. However, in order to put a damper on embarrassing questions poised by the corporate media, this time around, instead of ambiguity, the Pentagon has decided to kill the al-Zarqawi myth with a real live bomb, thus resolving the question in a typically violent way. Naturally, there is always the possibility al-Zarqawi will surface again, as he has done in the past. In early 2005, the “terror mastermind” (alternatively depicted as a petty criminal of sub-standard intelligence) “escaped shortly before raids on his hideouts,” according to Newsday. “Al-Zarqawi’s close calls are one sign that his militant network in Iraq has sustained serious losses and may be unraveling. Since early [February, 2005], Iraqi and U.S. forces have carried out a series of little-noticed raids in Baghdad, Mosul and other areas that led to the killing or capture of at least eight al-Zarqawi operatives. And then there was the story about the “Jordanian rebel” eluding “capture by American troops, but [leaving] behind a treasure trove of information” on a laptop computer. It was reported al-Zarqawi jumped out of a truck and ran to a safe house in Ramadi, even though he only has one leg. Now that “civil war” has spread over Iraq, as engineered (the idea is to break up Iraq into three ethnic and religious pieces), the Pentagon may want to move on from the al-Zarqawi PSYOP program. “Has the US created, as part of a covert intelligence operation, a bogus ‘resistance movement’ made up of its own Al Qaeda sponsored ‘terrorists’? Their suicide attacks target Iraqi civilians rather than the US military,” Michel Chossudovsky writes. The suicide bombings tend to encourage sectarian divisions not only within Iraq, but throughout the entire Middle East. They serve Washington’s interests. They contribute to undermining the development of a broader resistance movement uniting Shia, Sunni, Kurds and Christians against the illegal occupation of the Iraqi homeland. They also tend to create, at the international level, divisions within the antiwar and peace movements. Moreover, the disinformation campaign also permeates the Iraqi and Middle East press. The latter tend to take the alleged Al Zarqawi’s statements published on the internet at face value. The Zarqawi threat to the Shia is seen as genuine. The links between Al Qaeda in Iraq and US intelligence is rarely mentioned.
  5. Abu Musab Al-zarqawi Reportedly Killed

    I am no Abu Mussab Al-Zarkawi supporter, but this is an article worth pondering upon: (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.chris-floyd(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=689&Itemid=1"]Hubub in Hibhib: The Timely Death of al-Zarqawi[/url] Written by Chris Floyd Thursday, 08 June 2006 Excerpts: Abu Musab Saddam Osama al-Zarqawi, the extremely elusive if not entirely mythical terrorist mastermind responsible for every single insurgent action in Iraq except for the ones caused by the red-tailed devils in Iran or the stripey-tailed devils in Syria, has reportedly been killed in an airstrike in Hibhib, an area north of Baghdad, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki announced today. Zarqawi, the notorious shape-shifter who, according to grainy video evidence, was able to regenerate lost limbs, speak in completely different accents, alter the contours of his bone structure and also suffered an unfortunate binge-and-purge weight problem which caused him to change sizes with almost every appearance, was head of an organization that quite fortuitously dubbed itself "Al Qaeda in Iraq" just around the time that the Bush Administration began changing its pretext for the conquest from "eliminating Iraq's [non-existent] weapons of mass destruction" to "fighting terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them over here." The name change of the Zarqawi gang from its cumbersome original – "The Monotheism and Holy War Group" – to the more media-sexy "Qaeda" brand was thus a PR godsend for the Bush Administration, which was then able to associate the widespread native uprising against the Coalition occupation with the cave-dwelling dastards of the bin Laden organization. This proved an invaluable tool for the Pentagon's massive "psy-op" campaign against the American people, which was successful in sufficiently obscuring reality and defusing rising public concerns about what many experts have termed "the full-blown FUBAR" in Iraq until after the 2004 elections. However, in the last year, even the reputed presence of a big stonking al Qaeda beheader guy roaming at will across the land has not prevented a catastrophic drop in support for President Bush in general and the war in Iraq in particular. Polls show that substantial majorities – even those still psy-oped into believing the conquest has something to do with fighting terrorism – are now saying that the war "is not worth it" and call for American forces to begin withdrawing... (More after the jump....) Despite its fortuitousness, the reputed death of the multi-legged brigand came as no real surprise. After all, approximately 376 of his "top lieutenants" had been killed or captured by Coalition forces in the past three years, according to press reports, and some 5,997 lower-ranking "al Qaeda terrorists" have been killed in innumerable operations during that same period, according to Pentagon press releases. With the widespread, on-going, much-publicized decimation of his group, Zarqawi had obviously been rendered isolated and ineffective – except of course for the relentless series of high-profile terrorist spectaculars he kept carrying out, according to other Pentagon press releases... ...Today's news has likewise knocked the new atrocity allegations off the front pages, to be replaced with heartening stories of how, as the New York Times reports, Zarqawi's death "appears to mark a major watershed in the war." Thus in his reputed end as in his reputed beginning, the Scarlet Pimpernel of Iraq has, by remarkable coincidence, done yeoman service for the immediate publicity needs of his deadly enemy, the Bush Administration. It is not yet known who will now take Zarqawi's place as the new all-purpose, all-powerful bogeyman solely responsible for every bad thing in Iraq. There were recent indications that Maliki himself was being measured for the post, after he publicly denounced American atrocities and the occupiers' propensity for hair-trigger killing of civilians, but he seems to be back with the program now. Administration insiders are reportedly divided over shifting the horns to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's already much-demonized head, or planting them on extremist Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, or elevating some hitherto unknown local talent – or maybe just blaming the whole shebang on Fidel Castro, for old times' sake. The announcement of the new bogeyman is expected sometime in the coming weeks. UPDATE: It looks like the Twits might not get that reward money after all. Prime Minister Maliki said that those who helped locate Zarqawi, or someone just like him, in Hibhib, would get their reward later: "We believe in honoring our commitments." However, the (London) Times' man in Iraq, Ned Parker, tells us that Zarqawi might have been shopped to the Americans by Iraqi insurgents: One of the most interesting things about the news of his death is the timing. There have been talks going on since the election last December by US and Iraqi officials to try to bring the homegrown insurgency back into the political process. Certainly there was tension between the homegrown Iraqi insurgency and Zarqawi's foreign fighters. So it's possible a deal was finally cut by some branch of the Iraqi insurgency to eliminate al-Zarqawi and rid themselves of his heavy-handed influence. So if Bush does decide to pay off the informants -- and it's his money, after all, not Maliki's; in fact, in today's Iraq, any money that Maliki's government might still have left after three years of occupation rapine is Bush's money too -- but if Zarqawi's rumblers are paid off, then it's likely that Bush will be forking over $25 million to Iraq's Sunni insurgents. That will certainly keep them flush with IEDs for a long time to come. It's FUBAR every which way you turn in Bush's Babylon.
  6. :D Peace and Greetings All, The global insurgency, not to be confused with terrorism, against America is building momentum. It is a global reaction towards and resistance against high-handed, oppressive, untramelled and unjust American imperialism in all spheres of life on this planet as it affects non-Americans. One way or another, American imperialism - especially political and economic - must be halted - peacefully of course. Global insurgency and resistance does not advocate nor support "terrorism", whether of the kind advocated by extremists or especially the state terrorism of the kind carried out by the US government against much of the rest of the non-Western world, and now particularly the Muslim world which has been specifically targetted. Many Americans themselves are aware of what their government is doing and do not agree with it. Whether you wish to join the resistance or not is entirely up to you. But if you do not, the oppression of American imperialism will keep on growing. At the very least make your voice heard. Regards and may God help us all, yusufar For a glimpse of the true face of America, please read the following article: (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.serendipity.li/wot/animal_house.htm"]Masked and Anonymous: Inside America's Animal House by Chris Floyd[/url] Every now and then the mask slips, and we see the true face of the system that marshals the world. For an instant, the heavy paint of sober wisdom and moral purpose falls away, and there, suddenly, with jolting clarity, is the snarling rictus of an ape. Last week gave us two such moments: a quantum collision, where past and present co-exist temporarily, their overlapping images phasing in and out of synch: now Nixon now Bush now Kissinger now Rumsfeld, mouths, eyes, snarls morphing and shifting, with only one image holding constant between the eras — the twisted, shivered bodies of dead innocents. First was the release of long-secret phone transcripts from Henry Kissinger's heyday as Richard Nixon's National Security Adviser. The transcripts were obtained by the National Security Archive, the independent research center that has uses America's remarkable Freedom of Information Act (now under fierce assault by the Bush Regime) to unearth mountains of death and dishonor once locked in secret government files. Most of the news stories about the release centered on the Nixon Gang's panicky efforts to deal with bad publicity from the rape-and-slaughter rampage by U.S. troops in My Lai. As in today's Iraqi torture scandal, the panic was sparked by the existence of photographs confirming atrocities that were long known to the top brass: in this case, pictures of mutilated bodies in a burned-out village. And as with Abu Ghraib, the great statesmen were concerned wholly with "containing" the PR damage, not stopping the systematic abuses — which were, after all, being carried out at their command. Then as now, rump-covering was the order of the day. But hidden in the pile of power-talk — and virtually ignored by the press — was an extraordinary historical snapshot of a war crime in the moment of conception. It's 1970. Nixon is angry: the Air Force is not killing enough people in Cambodia, the country he's just illegally invaded without the slightest pretense of Congressional approval. The flyboys are doing "milk runs," their intelligence-gathering for targets is too tame, too by-the-book. There are "other methods of getting intelligence," Nixon tells Kissinger. "You understand what I mean?" "Yes, I do," pipes the loyal retainer. Nixon then orders Kissinger to send every available plane into Cambodia — bombers, fighters, helicopters, prop planes — to "crack the hell out of them," smother the entire country with deadly fire: "I want them to hit everything." Kissinger dutifully calls his own top aide, General Alexander Haig, and tells him to try to implement the plan: "He wants a massive bombing campaign in Cambodia," Kissinger says. "It's an order, it's to be done. Anything that flies on anything that moves." "Anything that flies on anything that moves." That's how the system works — beneath the mask. A blustering fool issues an order — and thousands upon thousands of innocent people die. An entire country is ripped to shreds, and into the smoking ruins steps a fanatical band of crazed extremists — the Khmer Rouge — who murder a million more. Just hours after the transcripts' release, the image of Kissinger in 1970, jowls pressed to the phone, calmly ordering mass death, morphed into the squinting visage of Pentagon chief Don Rumsfeld, addressing West Point graduates in 2004, exhorting the young cadets to a life of honor and moral purpose — without a single mention of the rape-and-torture gulag he's strung across the world at the order of his own hell-cracking master, George W. Bush. Rumsfeld also issued this stark warning to the world: the illegal invasion of Iraq is just "the beginning" of what is no longer merely a "war on terror" but is now an all-out death-struggle with what Rumsfeld called — in a major slip of the mask — "global insurgency." Note carefully the change in rhetoric — the change in target — from "terrorism" to "insurgency." An "insurgent" is someone who rises up within a given domain to resist or overthrow the ruling power. George Washington was an insurgent; so was Pol Pot. But a perceived "global insurgency" can only be aimed at a global power — one whose domain encompasses the entire planet. What Rumsfeld is clearly saying is that anyone anywhere who resists the world-spanning will of the American Empire will be subject to "the path of action." That's the blood-and-iron terminology that Bush himself used to describe his policies in the official "National Security Strategy" he issued — just months before killing more than 10,000 civilians in Iraq. No doubt the definition of "global insurgent" will prove to be every bit as elastic as "terrorist," in a world where Iraqi prisoners — 70-90 percent of them completely innocent, according to the Red Cross — were "Gitmo-ized," treated just like the dubiously accused terrorists in America's lawless Guantanamo concentration camp; a world where even U.S. citizens simply disappear into the maw of military custody, held without charges, indefinitely, on the president's express order. If America controls your country and you don't like it, then you're an insurgent. If you're an American who doesn't like to control other countries, then you're an insurgent too. And the war against you is "just beginning." "Global insurgency. Crack the hell out of them. The path of action. Anything that flies on anything that moves." They should chisel these words on the Capital Dome, spraypaint them across the pristine walls of the White House walls, teach them in every classroom across the land — for this is the system, this is the true constitution of the National Security State, this is the authentic voice of the American Establishment, the great and the good, the best and brightest. This is what they do, what they've always done. From the Indians to the Iraqis, anyone who gets in the way of their power and privilege — individuals, tribes, whole nations — gets trampled, broken, ruined, slaughtered. "Anything that flies on anything that moves." Then again, there's nothing uniquely "American" about these criminal policies, and the hypocrisy that attends them. It's how elites have behaved from time immemorial, from the days of the apes: baring their teeth and pounding their chests, ruling through fear and violence, beating, biting, raping, killing — whatever it takes to maintain their perch at the top of the tree. They disguise their savagery — even from themselves — with masks of pomp and piety, with earnest protestations of their "good hearts," their nobility, their enlightenment, their altruism. But what moves them is the spirit of the beast, the blind gut-lust for dominance, the ape-remnants that live on in our brains. They're too weak, too stupefied with corruption to rise above this inherent bestiality. What should we do with such dangerous creatures in a civilized society? Why, put them in a cage, of course. Chris Floyd is a columnist for the Moscow Times and a regular contributor to CounterPunch. His CounterPunch piece on Rumsfeld's plan to provoke terrorist attacks came in at Number 4 on Project Censored's final tally of the Most Censored stories of 2002. He can be reached at: cfloyd72[at]hotmail(contact admin if its a beneficial link) This article appeared earlier in the May 29/31, 2004, issue of Counterpunch Join the Global Insurgency today! This image (first published on Serendipity 2004-06-08) may be reproduced, unaltered, free of charge on any website with or without acknowledgement of source (but a link to this webpage is recommended). Right-click on the image to download. We might take a lesson from the growing Iraqi insurgency and the response of that nation nearly destroyed by our pretext-laden invasion and the American neo-Jacobin possession of that country. ... They know what they don’t want, and have made a personal commitment to resist it. They are living at reduced standards, not only within or under their means but often proudly and creatively so, relying upon and strengthening extended networks of family and friends as they do. ... All are qualified to resist. None are excluded. — Karen Kwiatkowski, Ph.D., Lt. Col. (USAF, ret.): Unleashing the Resistance
  7. The Global Insurgency Against America

    You intrigue me, brother. Pardon my ignorance, but which "five" are you referring to? :D
  8. Unity In Islam

    My fellow Muslim Brothers and Sisters, Here we see the real problem. Until we find a way to deal with it, Islam and Muslims will continue to suffer and be oppressed. How do we deal with it is the question and all sincere Muslims will have work out a solution. While this may involve some discussion of sectarian issues, I hope that this can take place with a certain degree of maturity, if this Forum permits. If it is not permitted, then we will have to discuss something else! Regards, yusufar
  9. The Global Insurgency Against America

    The oppressed peoples of the world trying to break free of their oppressors and liberate themselves from oppression. Subversives and insurgents all of them... :D
  10. The Global Insurgency Against America

    Most Americans don't even know what their own lot are doing and couldn't care less why.
  11. A typical knee jerk reaction if I ever saw one. Total confusion of mind regarding two different incidents in two different countries. But typical nonetheless from what I have seen. We can all probably see where and in whose mind the ## really is - a huge mountain of it. This guy must be one of Bush's and Bliar's advisers.
  12. Unity In Islam

    I'm with you on this too. However, we have to note that even an 'open' system is liable to abuse as we see in the case of America today, especially if the (silent) majority of the people allow themselves to be disproportionately controlled by the more agressive or opportunistic minority elite. Once the general Muslim Community can agree that these checks and balances are necessary to prevent abuse of Islam and the Community itself, then yes there would need to be a drive to have individual states develop and adopt them. Even a loose confederation would be a good start - not as loose as the OIC though, but something more binding so that it is all not merely talk and rhetoric.
  13. Unity In Islam

    True to some extent. This is certainly an issue for all Muslims to consider. There are certain things which obviously go out of Islam completely. But this doesn't mean that we have to impose our judgements when it is not called for, especially when it is not going to lead to any improvement in the position of Islam and may even be to its detriment. In saying this I do not mean that we have to whitewash all differences merely for the sake of unity. There are some things we may ultimately have to leave to Allah's judgement. I don't see why Sunni Islam cannot unite with Shiah Islam, for example, unless Sunni Muslims insist that their sect is the only true Islam as you appear to suggest. Does this mean that you consider Shiah Muslims as not really "Muslims" and beyond the pale of Islam? I do not think that that is a tenable position at all, much as both may have their disagreements on certain points of doctrine which do not affect the basic tenets of Islam in any way. This will involve making a ruling on a matter which may be beyond the knowledge of either of the parties in disagreement and based on suppositions which neither can or should make. At best we can agree to disagree, otherwise we will be faced with the situation of trying to eliminate each other, which will not be in the wider interests of Islam. Arguing about which "sect" is the saved sect is counter-productive and to me completely unnecessary. Neither can impose its views on the other and we could even be prejudging a matter which is within Allah's province and not that of humans. Let's get smart and stop this totally unnecessary bickering, which in some Muslim countries has deteriorated into violence, destruction and death between Muslims - which itself is unIslamic and entirely not in the interests of Islam. Only the enemies of Islam benefit from this and for all you know are also capitalising on it by fostering it and probably partially organizing it in certain areas as well. Why put ourselves in their hands and play their game to our own detriment? Bringing death and destruction upon each other is not going to settle the issue of which one is ultimately right or wrong - that is the irony of the situation if only Muslims realised it. Perhaps it is time for Muslims to start thinking rationally instead of merely emotionally.
  14. Unity In Islam

    Irrelevant Irrelevant Irrelevant Irrelevant Irrelevant Irrelevant Irrelevant :D
  15. Unity In Islam

    We have to work towards getting Muslims and Muslim governments unhooked from this concept of nationalism or each of their nations first. That is not how Islam works and that is one of the main causes of the break-up and sub-division of Muslim power. Muslims must learn to work together and put the needs and greater good of the Community before their own narrow tribal, sectarian and national interests. In reality the current international economy serves the interests of the elites and the rich and powerful not just of the West but also of Muslims as well. This is how Muslim populations are subjugated and oppressed by their own kind. It is not just the West which benefits, obviously. While the West wants to maintain this disparity on a global level, the Muslim elites want to maintain this disparity on a national level. Welcome to the insurgency. The very diversity of the Muslim world can also be its greatest strength. No one group can become over-powerful. This factor can be worked into the United Islamic State's Constitution. Whoever runs the United Islamic State must really be at the service of the whole Muslim Community and not just one part of it.
  16. Unity In Islam

    How should Muslims deal with non-Muslims in an Islamic State? With tolerance and respect for their views and lifestyles which do not conflict with Islamic norms. This kind of tolerance must also extend among Muslims as long as any Muslim group does not go against generally accepted norms of the Muslim Community at large. Muslims must learn to accept diversity and plurality of the Muslim world as a blessing, not as a curse or something undesirable. This tolerance must be engendered as an integral and essential part of the United Islamic State. Without it there can be no such state. Islam being what it is - a mercy for mankind and a middle path, it cannot be a totalitarian regime nor can it be an entirely liberal or permissive one.
  17. Unity In Islam

    The problem with this is that many of the Muslim nation-states are controlled by elites who subjugate and oppress their own people. Under these circumstances it is not easy to challenge the oppressive international system, although obviously I would agree that this needs to be done. Many Muslim countries are in fact rich in natural resources, and there is no necessity for their people to remain poor, other than for the fact that the wealth of their countries has deliberately been controlled by their elites and not equitably distributed - this is unIslamic but has become a norm in many Muslim countries. I would agree that we should not replace a secular despotic system for a relious despotic system - that would not be progress nor would it benefit Muslims. But whatever system it is will have to be based on Islamic principles and Muslims will have to ensure that true principles of Islamic justice will prevail. This is something Muslims will always have to guard against, since it so easy for Islam to be hijacked by extremists using the very name of Islam itself, while substituting their own egos' sense of justice for that of Islam. We cannot depend only upon good intentions or purported good intentions of the religious scholars and allow ourselves to be tyrannized by them or any leaders who are elected by us to represent us. A fail-safe system of check-and-balances will have to be worked out and put in place to avoid the Muslim Ummah in general from being held to ransom by any of its components while giving each its rightful role to play in the United Islamic State. In my opinion this particular "trend" is worthy of being criminalized and severe penalties imposed on anyone calling another Muslim an apostate or kafir. Personally I don't mind being called anything by anyone, but this kind of labelling can be very divisive for the Muslim Community and even lead to great violence between Muslims as we have seen many examples of.
  18. Unity In Islam

    Peace to you too, Possibly a federal state with a centralised leadership. I don't think it will be a monarchy until the 2nd Coming of Jesus (pbuh) and even then will be limited only to him probably. It will have to speak with one united voice as far as certain central matters directly pertaining to Islam and relationships with non-Islamic States are concerned (foreign affairs). It may be a free trade bloc as far as all its member States are concerned. The basic European model may be considered, but with a more powerful leadership based on the American presidency. Regards, yusufar
  19. Unity In Islam

    :D Patience Brother, Neither Rome nor the EEC were built in a day and so also a United Islamic State. I give no hints because this is just the introduction. Yes, there will be a lot of differences to be bridged and each one will have to be identified and solutions worked out. I do not mind shouting out in the desert or anywhere else at all, sooner or later someone will hear, and maybe more will gather towards the call. How-to is obviously not easy, but until we all take that first step towards the light, it will remain dark. By all means, let us discuss the political ideas towards such a goal, after all this is the Political Front of the Islamic Forum. yusufar :D
  20. About The Apostates

    :D The following article may also cast some further light on the issue of apostacy: (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.toledomuslims(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/Forum/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=300&posts=1"]Apostasy & Islam: Through the eyes of A Former Apostate by T.O. Shanavas[/url], the author of the book, CREATION AND/OR EVOLUTION An Islamic Perspective (ISBN 1-4134-6581-1) A Few years ago, during question-answer session in the Islamic Center of Greater Center, a member inquired about the punishment for apostasy in Islam. It is an unfortunate common belief among many Muslims that Shariah prescribes death for the apostate!!! I was once an apostate and openly declared I did not believe in Islam and rejected even the existence of God. Thank God! I was then living in a country, India, where people did not execute apostates. I thank God for giving me a chance to repent and return to the fold of Islam. I, being an apostate once, became free from the cultural and ethnic Islam to study true Islam with an open mind. "Islamic scholars" and imams do not anymore control my mind and beliefs unless their decrees (fatawa) are (1) in conformity with the Qur'an, (2) the hadiths that they quote do not contradict the Qur'an. Many Muslims today practice an ironic form of idolatry (in Islamic terminology, shirk, the one sin Allah does not forgive). We, Muslims, criticize other religions for not being truly monotheistic, yet so many of us are guilty of another, more subtle form of shirk: we worship our scholars instead of Allah! We commit the sin for which other people are condemned by God in the Qur'an: "They have taken as lords besides Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Mary, when they were bidden to worship only one God. Be He glorified from all that they ascribe as partner unto Him!” [9:31] Now, most classical commentators of the Qur'an agree that the grave transgression alluded to here is not the literal worship of the learned people. According to Tirmidhi, the Holy Prophet was asked to explain this verse by Adi ibn Hatim, a convert (or apostate) from Christianity, and he confirmed that the sin was the people, "considering lawful what their priest declared lawful, even though it was forbidden by Allah." (Al-Jami, 44:9;IJ). I believe that many Muslims are reluctant to speak up because many "Islamic" cultures today encourage docility and teach to unquestioningly accept the decisions of "qualified" scholars. This is a new phenomenon; in the time of Muhammad (s), ideas were only supported after they had been proven to be in harmony with the Qur'an. Scholars could not just pull rank, as they were expected to be able to argue their cases. In fact, in a famous incident of Islamic history, a humble woman of Medina publicly corrected the Caliph. One day, Hazrat Umar (RA) was announcing a change in the rule mahr, when the woman in the crowd suddenly stopped him in his track by loudly quoting a verse of the Qur'an which contradicted his proposal. He had to relent, saying, "The women of Medina know the Qur'an better than Umar." So, it is time for Muslims to question the imams and scholars if they deviate from the Qur'an and hadiths that do not contradict the Qur'an. We must not only be satisfied by the answer of the scholars, but we must verify the source of their references. Remember, if Hazrath Umar (RA) can make a mistake, ordinary scholars and ordinary people like us also can make greater mistakes. The Qur'an and the sayings of the Prophet (s) require Muslims to think critically. Pagans are repeatedly berated for not questioning, for not using reason, even being compared to dumb animals on several occasions! "When it is said unto them: 'Follow that which Allah has revealed:' they say: 'Nay! We shall follow the ways of our fathers.' What! Even though their fathers were void of wisdom and guidance?....Deaf, dumb, blind, therefore they have no sense.” [2:170-171] "He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book.....” [3:7] "Will they not then ponder on the Qur'an? If it had been from other than Allah they would have found herein much incongruity.” [4:83] So, the principle established here is that (1) Muslims are required to think critically and not blindly accept the authority of their scholars, and (2) that the clear message of the Qur'an is to be preferred to any isolated law interpretation which contradicts the Qur'an's clear spirit. The Qur'an teaches that human beings are individually responsible. So, I believe that Allah would not forgive my sins on the Day of Judgment even if my sins were the result of following the advice of a certain Imam. I would not be able to hide behind any Imam or behind his fatwa even if coming from the most respected and revered Imam of any time. Therefore, views expressed here are my opinions based on the references given. I do not claim to be a scholar, but there are sometimes cases where the violation of the Qur'an is so self-evident that all Muslims can see them. I believe that inhuman law of apostasy has nothing to do with Islam of the Prophet (s) and it is an interpolation into Islam by fanatics among us and the selfish rulers. There are many reasons for me to believe that execution for apostasy is a manufactured law rather than divine law. Holy Prophet (s) spent his entire life fighting in defense of fundamental human rights that everybody should be free to choose his religion; no one must be physically forced to change religion. Prophet (s) struggled with the Meccan establishment to have the freedom to invite non-believers to Islam. This was consistent with the practices of all other Prophets. The Qur'an states: "...There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is here forth distinct from error...”[2:256] In the light of the above verse, a person has to be insane to belief that Islam prescribes execution for apostasy. The Qur'an further states: " Say (Muhammad) it is the truth from the Lord of all. Whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, LET him disbelieve.” [18:29] In no uncertain terms, Allah commands Prophet to allow people to believe and disbelieve. If the Shariah recommends to kill an apostate, this law cannot be Islamic because it contradicts the above two verses. The Qur'an further states: "And so, O Prophet, exhort them, thy task is ONLY to exhort; thou canst NOT compel them to believe.” [88:21-22] "Thy duty is to make the message reach them; it is OUR PART to call them to account." [13:40] "Call thou (all mankind) unto thy Sustainer's path with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and argue with them in MOST KINDLY MANNER...” [16:125] While the Qur'an commands the Prophet (s) not to compel people to believe in Islam and invite people with the most kind manner and words, fanatics among us threaten people with death mercilessly to keep them in the Muslim Ummah as hypocrites as if the dishonest hypocrites are better than honest apostates. It is a most heinous crime against Islam and Prophet (s) to manufacture inhuman law of execution of apostate. If the Qur'anic verses tell the Prophet not to compel people to believe in Islam (88:22) and the responsibility to call disbelievers to account rests with God only (1:40), the law of execution of apostates is of human origin. Initial reluctance of the people of Arabia to accept Islam disturbed Prophet (s). Then the following verse was revealed: "And had your Lord willed, whoever in the earth would have believed all together, will you then coerce people to become believers?” [10:99] According to the above verse, even God will not coerce people to become Muslims or remain as Muslim once a person accepts Islam. So, Muslims must condemn the law of apostasy and save innocent Muslims becoming intolerant and violent by the henious indoctrination by fanatics among us because Allah says: "Who can be more wicked than the one who invent a lie against God,...” [6:93] So, religious belief is a personal matter. It is God alone -- not the state or religious authorities -- who know what is in the heart of the people. If the highest human authority, Prophet (s), cannot call anyone to account for belief or disbelief, no sane person can believe that religious scholars and the state have the authority to execute people for their personal belief. The Qur'an states: "A section of the People of the Book say: 'Believe in the morning what is revealed to the believers, Bur reject it at the end of the day; perchance they may (themselves) turn back." [3:72] A section of People of the Book used a tactic to create doubt among the Muslims in the hope that some of them might thereby be beguiled into repudiating Islam. How could it be possible for non-Muslims to have enacted this plan to entice Muslims to believe one day and reject next, if death was the penalty for apostasy? This tactic of a group of People of the Book mentioned in the Qur’an exposes apostasy law of the Muslim fanatics as un-Islamic. In spite of the deceptive behavior, the above verse cautions Muslims that “perchance they may themselves turn back” truly to Islam. The Qur’an does not rule to kill the apostates. Abdullah b.Ubayy b.Salul was the leader of the munafiqun (hypocrites). But Prophet (s) took no action against him. Prophet (s) prayed for him and stayed at the grave until he was buried. Those fanatics among us must explain the reason for Prophet (s) not executing the known hypocrites like Abdullah b.Ubayy. Ubbay lived until death plotting to destroy Islam and Prophet (s) knew it. He was not executed for apostasy. This suggests that apostasy law is not a divine law but interpolation by fanatics among us. Another verse states: "Those who believe, then reject Faith, then believe (again) and again reject Faith, go on increasing in Unbelief -- God will not forgive them nor guide them on the Way.” [4:137] An apostate cannot enjoy the repeated luxury of believing and disbelieving if punishment is death. A dead man has no further chance of again believing and disbelieving. Furthermore, if taken at face value, this verse indicates that God will only withdraw His guidance after repeated rejections. It does not tell Prophet (s) to kill these apostates. So, what right do these religious authorities and imams have to deprive a person of access to the divine guidance after the first? The Qur'an states: "How shall God guide those who reject Faith after they accepted it and bore witness that the apostle was true and that clear signs had come unto them? But God guides not a people unjust. Of such the reward is that on them (rests) the curse of the God, of His Angels, and of all mankind; -- In that will they dwell; nor will their penalty be lightened, nor respite be their lot; -- except for those that repent (even) after that, make amends; For verily God is oft-forgiving, most merciful.” [3:86-89] It is obvious from these verses that no punishment is to be inflicted by one man or another for apostasy. By no stretch of the imagination can the phrase, "curse of Allah," be interpreted to be a license to murder anyone who he considers to be an apostate. If any such commandment was prescribed it would have been clearly defined as all other punishments are in the Holy Qur'an. The fact is that the Qur'an even mentions that apostates can be forgiven if they amend and repent. How could they repent if apostates are killed? By forced repentance? Then, does not Qur'an state that there is no compulsion in religion? The one verse that states that there is no compulsion in religion should be enough for a fair minded person to realize that Islam does not teach death to apostates. Finally, can any one hadith suggesting to kill the apostate invalidate all the Qur'anic verses quoted earlier? We, Muslims, blame the West for anti-Muslim reporting. What do you expect from the West if we provide the sticks to beat us up? Will Muslims object the persecution of the new Muslim convert for his/her apostasy by his/her erstwhile co-religionists? If we believe that it is injustice to kill a new Muslim by non-Muslims for his/her apostasy from his/her former faith, you must give the same just treatment to Muslims who become Christians, Jews, Hindus, atheists, etc. Let Allah call to account those people who left Islam. I, like many Muslims, am still bitter over smear jobs done on my religion by Western media over the Gulf war, and the Rushdie affair. So, the last thing that I want is to see Islam slandered all over again because of the barbaric and un-Islamic apostasy law. Ask yourselves: what kind of religion kills people for simple choice of faith, a change of heart? Not a religion of love and peace, not a religion worthy of respect! Perpetuation of the law to kill apostates can only increase or create doubts in the heart of the Muslims and potential Muslims, as people everywhere are already bombarded by negative images of Islam. My message to those Muslims who, like me, yearn to project true compassionate face of Islam is that Dawa will never be successful in the West as long as crazy nonsense of law of apostasy is unchallenged by Muslims. If Muhammed Ali, Cat Stevens, and Murad Hoffman were harassed by a reactionary Christian group, the Muslims will be up in arms! We must be consistent in our attitude and compassionate to those Muslims who want to leave Muslim community. "Believers, men and women, are protectors, one of another: they enjoin what is just, and forbid what is evil....” [9:71] Therefore, let us protect the rights of all people to have freedom to believe and disbelieve. In closing, Islam is only vulnerable when Muslims abandon its clear teaching of reason, religious freedom, tolerance, and peace.
  21. Moved to Main Political Front SubForum by yusufar
  22. The Global Insurgency Against America

    I have taken your advice and moved it to the main Political Front Sub-Forum. Islam just happens to be in the way of their destructive path to much of the world's natural resources which they want to control for their own benefit and that of some of the Muslim elites who collude with them (and to whom the true interests of the Muslim Community are not even a consideration). Most of the Muslim non-elites may not even realize what's going on, just like the American non-elites, and even if they do, they may not be able to do much about it, other than to join the (peaceful) insurgency, which if the elites do not give way to, may be transformed into revolution. Absolutely, we have seen it happen many times in Islamic history. Wassalam, yusufar
  23. About The Apostates

    There is only one cure for that - education and critical thought, especially on the real basis and tenets of Islam - the path in Islam has been clearly set – worship of Allah, prayer, spirituality, righteousness, piety, knowledge, good thought, good action, good behaviour, good deeds, trust, humility, kindness, tolerance, justice, equity, legitimacy, faith, reason, rationale, charity, peace, forgiveness, compassion, mercy, brotherhood and love. These are all powerful weapons against oppression, wrongdoing and injustice. Muslims have to figure out for themselves where they are going wrong if they wish to avoid getting frustrated by oppressive and unjust conduct of other Muslims as well as non-Muslims - to the extent that they are willing to blow themselves up along with innocent victims and call for the killing of apostates who do Islam and the Muslim Community no harm (they only harm themselves after all). Did God give any Muslim the right to do what many assume they can do in His Name and in the name of Islam, when it is only their own egos which make such assumptions? Regards, yusufar
  24. About The Apostates

    Good to know that. However, this issue is not one between "progressive" and "fundamentalist" Muslims. Personally, I am against any such misleading labels. As we know, even eminent Muslim scholars who were probably even more "fundamentalist" than any Muslim "fundamentalist" today did not agree with the punishment of death for apostasy. What I believe misled those who insisted on such a punishment was more political expediency rather than any thing else. What some, even scholars, have accepted as Shari'ah, may not be supported by the real fundamentals of Islam. If neither the Qur'an nor the Prophet (pbbuh) made any capital punishment ruling on such an important issue as apostasy - mere conversion, as you put it - then I can only say that any attempt to impose capital punishment in such a situation is not Islamic. That it has somehow come into and is accepted as part of the Shari'ah is to be regretted, but there are more than a few things in the Shari'ah and what Muslims do today which could do with more rigorous study and criticism in the light of the real fundamental tenets of Islam. Agreed. That is exactly what the Muslim scholars who disagree with the death penalty for apostasy say. That is also what God in the Qur'an says. Yet mankind is perverse enough to decide otherwise, as if it knows better than God. Mankind will always disagree even in the face of clear proof. Muslims are not immune to such perverse behaviour, even if some of them sincerely believe that what they do is in the name of God or Islam and even misguidedly believe has been ordained or permitted by Him. In reality they have set up their egos as God and follow the dictates of their own egos. Do not be baffled. The "existing reality of capital punishment for leaving Islam" was created by perverse politicians and jurists and blindly followed by the mass of unquestioning sheep. These are the same perverse persons who would kill a Muslim for wearing shorts when there is no such punishment in Islam. There is no question of evasion. Muslims have to deal with such perversion from within all the time and even worse perversion from outside as well. Yes indeed it is my opinion, and backed with the analysis I present has to be given some weight, even if I am not the person to determine any interpretation of anything. Mainstream jurists' consensus is not a valid yardstick to measure correctness - many jurists have kept silent in the face of oppression or manufactured judicial pronouncements in aid of the powers that be and have even been responsible for the extermination of many pious scholars and Muslims. Any law in the Shari'ah must find its basis in and be measured against the fundamental tenets of Islam. If that law is unIslamic when measured against the plain provisions of the Qur'an and Sunnah, then it cannot validly be a part of the Shari'ah. It is unconstitutional. Really? In this instance, even if what you say is correct, which is doubtful, I can only say that it would certainly be extremely difficult to legislate anything to do with one's internal beliefs and even if a Muslim wishes to apostasize, what would killing him achieve? His repentance? I for one don't see this as a crime against Islam or the Muslim Community and there are many others, including prominent scholars of Islam, who see it the same way. It is an affront to God, who will punish it as He pleases or He may forgive it in the case of sincere repentance (which does not come at the point of the sword). Islamic jurisprudence is only really divided on this issue in the sense as to whether it is a "crime" or not. I am well aware of that. :D I'm not so much arguing with you as giving a different perspective even for Muslims to ponder. I know that this is a major issue which non-Muslims like to capitalize on and I don't expect them to change their reasoning no matter what the Qur'an, the Prophet (pbbuh) or any Muslim, scholar or otherwise, says. For a fairly objective study, although I may not agree with all that it says, I would recommend the following: (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.findarticles(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/p/articles/mi_m2267/is_3_70/ai_110737774"]"Apostasy as objective and depersonalized fact: two recent Egyptian court judgments - Part II: Islamic law: boundaries and rights"[/url] Social Research, Fall, 2003 by Baber Johansen What this study basically shows is that the creation of the death for apostasy law is not to be found in the Qur'an, but rather that it was established by Muslims (i.e. it was man-made law) for politically expedient purposes. As far as the Shari'ah is concerned what is made by man can be undone by man - especially where there is no Divine ordinance for it. What was reportedly done during the time of the Prophet (pbbuh) for a specific purpose cannot be (mis)interpreted as giving carte blanche to succeeding generations to follow suit, purposely or otherwise, in blind imitation without the benefit of the direct Divine Guidance which he had. In reality therefore, the situation is a lot more complex and complicated than the critics of the "death for apostacy punishment" which is purportedly in Islam or Islamic Law, will give credit for. My stance must therefore not be taken as an apology for the fact that the so-called "death for apostacy punishment" exists (perversely though it may be) in Islamic countries purportedly applying the Shari'ah. Some excerpts from the above (my emphasis added in italics): ..."The Muslim jurists of the premodern period had assigned ethical norms an important place and had clearly distinguished purely ethical from enforceable legal norms. The notion of the individual believer as someone who takes ethical responsibility for his acts independently from the decisions of the judiciary and the political institutions found its expression in the concept of the individual's own interior forum (batin). This holds especially true for questions of belief and unbelief. In the last instance, these questions were considered a matter of religious conscience, even if judicial decisions against apostates were legitimized for political reasons. When the modern nation-states' codification of the law reduced Islamic law to personal statute law, the state's written law abandoned the purely ethical norms of that tradition and with them the concept of the individual's own forum (batin)..." "...Fourth, the notion of a modern, tolerant, and pluralist Islam is not rendered obsolete by these trials. State institutions, such as the prosecution, often side with the accused intellectuals against the apostasy procedure of the judges. Many intellectuals, lawyers, journalists, writers, and artists opt for an understanding of Islam that encourages public debates about the way in which Islam can be harmonized with notions of freedom and democracy guaranteed by the constitutions of the modern Arab nation-states. The courts that condemn Muslim intellectuals as apostates constitute one--and for now probably the most powerful--institutional component of modern Islam at the end of the twentieth century. But the reality of modern--and classical--Islam is much more complex than the courts' reasoning allows us to understand..." "...The Koran, on the other hand, discusses apostasy in a number of verses (sura 95, verse 54; sura 47, verse 25; sura 2, verse 217; sura 3, verse 80; sura 16, verses 108-109) but nowhere mentions a punishment in this world. The Koranic text threatens the apostates with punishment in the hereafter only. Verse 217 of the second sura translates well the Koranic stance on this matter: "But those of you who turn back on their faith and die disbelieving will have wasted their deeds in this world and the next. They are inmates of Hell, and shall there abide forever." Apostasy and unbelief are here seen as a matter between God and the concerned individuals. Apostates will be punished in the world to come. Yet, many reports about the normative practice of the prophet, his Sunna, require the punishment of apostasy in this world. In all fairness it has to be said that there are more reports warning the believers that it is a mortal sin to declare the fellow Muslim an unbeliever. The fiqh specialists, finally, whose literature springs into existence in the second half of the eighth century, agree on the idea that the apostate has to return to Islam or be killed..." "...Classical Hanafi doctrine holds that the capital punishment of the apostate serves mainly political aims. I quote two famous Hanafi jurists from Central Asia on this matter. The first is the eleventh-century Transoxanian jurist Sarakhsi, one of the major authorities of the Hanafi school. He says: "The change of religion and the original form of unbelief belong to the most abominable of crimes. But [their judgment] is a matter between God and his servant and the punishment [of this crime] is postponed until the hereafter. The measures advanced in this base world [and which thus precede God's judgment] are matters of political expediency [siyasat mashru'a] ordained by the law in order to protect human interests" (Sarakhsi, n.d., vol. 10: 110). In the same vein, the twelfth-century Hanafi jurist Marghinani, whose book al-Hidaya exerted a lasting influence on the Hanafi jurists of the Near East, states his position with the following words: "In principle, punishments are postponed to the hereafter and the fact that they are advanced [so that they precede the hereafter] violates the sense of probation [as the sense of human life in this world]. One deviates from this principle in order to defy a present evil and that is warfare [against the Muslims]" ('Ayni, vol. VI: 702-703). (2) "...The classical Hanafi doctrine defined the punishment of apostasy as a punishment for warfare against the Muslim community, not as a punishment for unbelief. This approach, unique among the schools of fiqh, spells out the jurists' hesitation to directly interfere with questions of belief..." I trust it is clear where I'm going with this. Islam will never be damaged by apostacy, and where apostates actively fight or wage war against the Muslim Community, the right of self-defence is and must always be available just as it is to any other community on earth. But the punishment for apostacy per se can never be death. That will have to wait till after death. Regards, yusufar Please take a look at the following article on the Islamic Forum: (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.gawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showtopic=30070"]The Golbal Insurgency Against America[/url]
  25. Greetings and Peace Brother Joseph/Yusuf, Congratulations on finding the Right Way. The rest of your life will be spent trying to stay on the Right Path. It may not always be easy. God willing, you will do so by remaining sincere to the One God, Allah. With regard to prayer times, I have found a program on (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.muhaddith(contact admin if its a beneficial link)"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.muhaddith(contact admin if its a beneficial link)[/url] which is free for download and which you can program with the exact map coordinates for your area to know the exact prayer times (or you can use the already set area/town/city you are in). Islam is a lifetime of learning, so don't worry if you cannot get easy access to a masjid or Muslim community. Allah will send access to these as you go along. Just be aware that not all that Muslims do is necessarily Islamic. If you are not sure about anything in Islam, ask and do research. You will find many answers on this forum itself. May Allah bless you. Regards, yusufar
×